POST-OFFICE BUILDING AT SOUTHBRIDGE, MASS. LETTER FROM THE ACTING SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY, TRANSMITTING ESTIMATE OF DEFICIENCY APPROPRIATION FOR SITE AND COMMENCEMENT OF POST-OFFICE BUILDING AT SOUTHBRIDGE, MASS. FEBRUARY 11, 1915.-Referred to the Committee on Appropriations and ordered to be printed. TREASURY DEpartment, Washington, February 10, 1915. SIR: I have the honor to submit herewith, for the consideration of Congress in connection with the general deficiency appropriation bill now pending, the following estimate: Southbridge, Mass., post office For site and commencement (site and building) $18,000 The department, acting under authority contained in the public buildings act approved March 4, 1913, has issued an acceptance for the purchase of a site at Southbridge, Mass., in the amount above named. Funds will be needed shortly with which to make payment of the purchase price. Respectfully, B. R. NEWTON, Acting Secretary. The SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, Washington, D. C. REFUNDS OF CUSTOMS DUTIES. LETTER FROM THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY, TRANSMITTING A DETAILED STATEMENT OF THE REFUNDS OF CUSTOMS DUTIES, ETC., FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDED JUNE 30, 1914, AS REQUIRED BY PARAGRAPH Y OF SECTION 3 OF THE TARIFF ACT OF OCTOBER 3, 1913. FEBRUARY 12, 1915.-Referred to the Committee on Ways and Means and ordered to be printed. TREASURY DEPARTMENT, OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY, The SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. SIR: I have the honor to transmit herewith, for the information of Congress, a detailed statement of the refunds of customs duties, etc., for the fiscal year ended June 30, 1914, as required by paragraph Y of section 3 of the tariff act of October 3, 1913. Respectfully, W. G. MCADOO, Secretary. EXHIBIT I. (T. D. 33527.) Metal polish. UNITED STATES v. HOLLAND-AMERICAN TRADING Co. (No. 1126). POLISH AS A MANUFACTURED ARTICLE. This polish appears to be composed of pulverized silicia, alumina, and lime saturated and mixed with petroleum oil and fat. This combination of materials is not fairly to be described as a chemical compound or mixture. It was properly held dutiable as an unenumerated manufacture under paragraph 480, tariff act of 1909. United States Court of Customs Appeals, May 26, 1913. APPEAL from Board of United States General Appraisers, Abstract 31318 (T. D. 33194). [Affirmed.] William L. Wemple, Assistant Attorney General (Charles E. McNabb, assistant attorney, of counsel; Anthony P. Ludden, special attorney, on the brief), for the United States. Jules Chopak, jr., for appellees. Before MONTGOMERY, SMITH, BARBER, DE VRIES, and MARTIN, Judges. BARBER, Judge, delivered the opinion of the court: The merchandise is metal polish, and was assessed for duty as composed of earthy or mineral substances under paragraph 95 of the tariff act of 1909 upon the return of the appraiser to that effect. He had reported that upon an examination of the merchandise he found it to be composed in chief value of earthy or mineral substances. The importers protested, claiming that duty should be assessed upon the polish as a manufactured article at 20 per cent ad valorem under paragraph 480 of the same act. At the hearing before the Board of General Appraisers, although one witness was called by the importers, his evidence went no further than to establish the fact that the samples correctly represented the importation, but this fact was conceded by the Government. The case was then submitted with the request on the part of the importers that the samples be submitted to a chemist for a quantitative and qualitative analysis, with permission to file briefs 10 days after said analysis might be returned. After such return the importers preferred a request that the Government chemist be requested to determine the component material of chief value of the sample he had examined. The Government objected to this upon the ground that the chemist was not competent to testify as to values. The request was denied and no further proceedings that are material to the decision of the case were had before the board. The board in its decision said that from the analysis of the chemist of the appraiser's laboratory it is quite apparent to us that it is not such an article as should be classified under paragraph 95 and sustained the protest. The Government appeals, assigning, among other things, error in that the board should have held the merchandise dutiable as assessed; and also that it is dutiable as a chemical compound or mixture under paragraph 3 of the same act. In its brief here the Government relies mainly upon its claim that the merchandise is dutiable under paragraph 3 and asks that the judgment of the board be reversed. The importers contend for its affirmance. No objection was made to the chemist's analysis being treated as evidence by the board and no question as to its competency is made here. The analysis is as follows: United States v. Embossing Co. (3 Ct. Cust. Appls., 220; T. D. 32536) and Bartley Brothers v. United States (ib., 363) seem to preclude the correctness of the collector's classification and are referred to for authority and reasoning on that subject. Not only this, but they seem to be authority for sustaining the action of the board, because we do not think the merchandise here is shown to be a chemical compound or mixture within the meaning of paragraph 3. This polish is apparently composed of pulverized silica, alumina, and lime, saturated and mixed with the petroleum, oil, and fat named in the analysis, resulting in a thick, pasty substance, typical in appearance of similar articles of common everyday use. Chemically speaking, some of the component materials may be chemical compounds or the result of chemical mixture, but we are unwilling to say on the record here that a substance composed so largely of silica, commonly known to be crushed quartz-the sand of the seashore-alumina, one of the most abundant of earths (see Century Dictionary), and petroleum and saponifiable fat is a chemical compound or mixture under paragraph 3. Tariff statutes are addressed to the common understanding and speak in the language of the common people, unless a different commercial meaning is shown, although, of course, recourse may be had when necessary to technical and scientific works to elucidate the meaning. So construed, we do not think it ought to be held in this case that the metal polish is a chemical compound or mixture, as claimed. Emphasis is given to this conclusion by the fact that this issue was in no respect litigated before the board, and the reliance of the Government here is upon certain chemical formulas for several of the ingredients of the polish. Without designing to here establish a precedent for other cases involving similar or like articles coming before us on a more complete record, we conclude that the judgment of the Board of General Appraisers should be, and it is, affirmed. EXHIBIT 2. (T. D. 33482.) Rotten fruit. LAURICELLA et al. v. UNITED STATES (No. 1063). 1. REARRANGING LANGUAGE IN A STATUTE. It is a familiar principle of statutory construction that for the determination of legislative intent courts may assemble provisions of a statute in accord with that intent. 2. SUBSECTION 22, SECTION 28, TARIFF ACT OF 1909. Nonimportation of a part of the cargo of lemons was claimed. The provision of the tatute is that "proof" of destruction or nonimportation "shall be lodged with the collector of customs," etc. There is no limitation in the language of the statute of the kind of proof or otherwise save as to time when this proof may be made by the importer. The statute allows ten days to introduce such proof; to limit this to five, as is sought in the Treasury regulation, is in excess of statutory power.-Vandegrift v. United States (3 Ct. Cust. Appls., 198; T. D. 32470) distinguished. |